Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51835/2016dismiss for nonprosecution

Binita Devi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-29Mr. Justice Rana Vikram Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51835 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-714 Year-2014 Thana- AHIYAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

Binita Devi, W/o Sri Binod Chaudhary 2.

Binod Chaudhary, S/o late Bhola Chaudhay 3.

Sonu Chaudhary @ Rahul Kumar @ Sonu Kumar @ Rahul, S/o Sri Binod Chaudhary 4.

Rupesh Kumar S/o Sri Binod Chaudhary All residents of village - Jaya, P.S. - Gayghat, District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the State :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-07-2026 On repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Ms. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State is present and he points out that in the instant application, the order dated 05.09.2016 passed by the learned 14th Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 271 of 2016, arising out of Ahiyapur P.S. Case No. 714 of of 2014 (G.R. No. 6191 of 2014), whereby the discharge application has been dismissed, is under challenge.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51835 of 2016(6) dt.29-07-2026 2/2

3. Mr. Pandey further points out that vide order dated 18.04.2024, this Court had called for the stage of the trial from the learned Trial Court and the same has accordingly been received vide letter No. 412 dated 06.05.2024 and on perusal of which, it is evident that charges have already been framed on 18.05.2017 and thereafter, seven witnesses including the informant and the Investigating Officer had been examined and as such, this application has practically become infructuous.

5. However, since there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners on repeated calls, the application stands dismissed for want of prosecution.

(Rana Vikram Singh, J) Praveen-II/- U T